or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Opinions Needed - Fischer RX8,9,WC Head SS Speed
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Opinions Needed - Fischer RX8,9,WC Head SS Speed

post #1 of 34
Thread Starter 
I had a thread going about a recommended GS ski and the feedback directed me towards GS Cheaters and shorter lengths than I had initially considered. I have demo'd some more skis now and would like an opinion on some lower cost options I have found to buy. I am 36, 235lbs , 6'3" been skiing 25yrs , advanced/expert but not much time on modern carving skis. Ski in the east. Based on my demoing I seem to like a stiff medium radius ski, probably leaning on the medium -long radius but also want to get shorter radius if I push the skis.

Skis Demo'd:

07- Head iXRC 1200 SW (170) : Favorite ski so far , felt lively good long radius and short, felt great on hardpack and manageable in crud. I would have liked to try a 177 but none available

07- Head iXRC 1400 SW (163,170) : 163 felt a little short, 170 was very similar to the 1200 but felt too damp , kinda dead. Seemed more GS only.

07- Head Worldcup I.SL CP13 (160): Fun ski at low speed but too short and too turny for me. Might be nice in a long length but none available to try.

06 - Fisher Ripstick (178): Skis felt shorter than the 170 Head 1200 and a little soft but otherwise a nice all around ski.

07 - Head IM 82 (172): These skis were not tuned great and felt soft in the tips for my liking , didn't have the bite of the 1200's but it may have been the tuning. I believe prefer a more agressive carving ski.

So far my favorite ski was the 07 Head 1200 in the 170 but I would like to try something longer but just cannot find a demo in my area. Availability/price is also a problem in the 07 1200.

The skis I am now considering based on price and availability are:

07 - Fischer WC RC (175)
06 - Fischer RX-8 ( 175 or 180)
06 - Fischer RX-9 (180)
06 - Head iXRC 1200 SW (current SS Speed) (170 or 175)

Any comments on how these skis compare to each other and the 07 Head 1200 would be appreciated keeping in mind my size and preference to a hard biting all around carver.

Any feedback is greatly appreciated.
post #2 of 34

vote for RX 8

RX 8 in 175 or better if you can find em at your size 180 will do the trick. My long winded thoughts and experiences on the topic can be found herewith by clicking on below thread. Our dawgcatching might have em at closeout or ebay would have either length from good sellers right now....180 discontinued in current model year BTW.

Enjoy! Please post thoughts and a review after you ski em!!


http://forums.epicski.com/showthread...eferrerid=8500

BTW I am hunting for 180's now, but need to be cheap....to continue my experiment to include 165,170,175 and 180
post #3 of 34
I would question whether the RX8 would be enough ski for someone your size. I demoed a pair at Wachusett a while ago in a 175, and found them to be quite soft and squirrelly when they were pushed, and I'm no where near as big as you. I also demoed a pair of the XRC 1200's, also at Wachusett, in a 177, which would be much better for you. Liked them a lot. And Dawgcatching has a great price on them. As another option, I have a pair of 2006 Elan S12's in a 176 that fit the description of what you are looking for that I am going to be selling. They have less than three days on them. They are a great medium radius groomer carver (see Peter Keelty's review on Realskiers.com), but they are a little too stiff for me in the bumps. For someone your size, they would be just what you are looking for. And I'm willing to let them go cheap, so I can move on to something else. As I told you, I really liked the XRC 1200, I still want to try the XRC 1400 (same ski as the 1200 but with the Chip), but I haven't had any luck finding a pair. But as I said, if you live anywhere near Wachusett Mtn, they have the 177 to try. And if you decide to buy a pair, be sure to look up Dawg on this site, as he can hook you up.
Good luck.
post #4 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac View Post
I would question whether the RX8 would be enough ski for someone your size. I demoed a pair at Wachusett a while ago in a 175, and found them to be quite soft and squirrelly when they were pushed, and I'm no where near as big as you. As another option, I have a pair of 2006 Elan S12's in a 176 that fit the description of what you are looking for that I am going to be selling. They have less than three days on them. They are a great medium radius groomer carver (see Peter Keelty's review on Realskiers.com), but they are a little too stiff for me in the bumps. For someone your size, they would be just what you are looking for. And I'm willing to let them go cheap, so I can move on to something else.
Wow, just goes to prove YMMV, demo demo demo. I ski'd the Elan s12 and thought it was a bit of a noodle, much prefered the Elan M 666 in 176. Magfire 12 is the same ski as M 666 according to many. Could have been the tune on the s12 who knows. Didn't work for me....never tried ripstick in 178 tho I wanted too...further at the time I was comparing it to my allstars which are a powerhouse.

One man's junk is another man's treasure....

Demo if you can....remember when reading my comments on RX 8 you got 50 lbs on me.....I am 6' 185...so I probably in retrospect should shut up and defer to the big guys......at my weight neither the 170 or 175 RX 8 are soft or squirrely, at least not for me. You do need to be on edge tho, not for old school technique, ski wants you to create modern angles. See demo team videos in signature for what I am refrg too.

I'm out on this one....too little at 185 lbs agreed for relevant comment I guess....a suggestion tho would be PM marcusfire, fischermh and coach 13 they are about your size and can comment on how the RX 8 feels to someone closer to your weight.....

BTW FWIW misread your post first time, thought you said 205 lbs, my bad, would not have chimed in at 235 lbs.

Need to practice my reading skills
post #5 of 34
I was kind of surprized by the stiffness of the S12 myself. I generally like my skis big and beefy. Skied them right out of the plastic wrapper they came in, so I doubt it's tune related, unless they came that way from the factory. I remember in another thread, HelluvaSkier though that they were kind of soft while Noodler thought they were one of the stiffer skis he'd tried. I guess it depends on the pilot. Actually, it may come down to the flex, instead of the stiffness. They are great on the groomers, but in bumps or crud, the flex seems to work against me. But then again, I remember reading an older review by Dawgcatching saying that the S12 was one of the best all mountain all conditions skis he'd ever been on. Go figure.
post #6 of 34
Hi RR,

The Fischers offer a more lively feeling and are a little more fun IMO. I wrote this review of the RX8 & World cup RC last year: http://forums.epicski.com/showthread...star+Intuitive

I would consider the RX8 in a 175cm for eastern skiing. The ski is quicker than the other models mentioned here and better in most situations. The WC RC is a great hard snow carver but requires very good technique (no slacking off) and is less versatile in soft snow. My weight is in the 225 to 235Lbs range.



Hope that helped.

Michael
post #7 of 34
It's interesting that while you found the S12 to be soft that you like the RX8. I found the S12 to be fairly stiff, while the RX8, at least to me, was very soft. I found that I reached the speed limit of the RX8 very quickly, and that they really got knocked around alot in the built up crud along the sides of the trails in comparison to the other skis I had demoed. We are similar enough in size so that shouldn't be an issue. And I'm a fairly well schooled student of modern technique. It just goes to show the importance of demoing.
post #8 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac View Post
I was kind of surprized by the stiffness of the S12 myself. I generally like my skis big and beefy. Skied them right out of the plastic wrapper they came in, so I doubt it's tune related, unless they came that way from the factory. I remember in another thread, HelluvaSkier though that they were kind of soft while Noodler thought they were one of the stiffer skis he'd tried. I guess it depends on the pilot. Actually, it may come down to the flex, instead of the stiffness. They are great on the groomers, but in bumps or crud, the flex seems to work against me. But then again, I remember reading an older review by Dawgcatching saying that the S12 was one of the best all mountain all conditions skis he'd ever been on. Go figure.
I loved the S12 back when I owned it, although it was 3 seasons ago. It could pretty much do anything and was really forgiving. Nowadays, I think I like a little more of a powerhouse ski (the S12 was a bit damp, although very stable) and I think the Speedwave 14 is a better ski for me, in terms of both edgehold and energy, and I would probably now pick the 666 or new Magfire 12 (82mm) as the all-conditions ski. Even in those 3 years, skis have come a long way. I was on the Magma the past few days, and the stabiliy in rough stuff this thing has for an 82mm ski is amazing. I was hitting some pretty insane speeds on ungroomed, skier-packed (end of day) runs where it was probably 6" of new overnight, but just got churned up into soft bumps and softpack. I just let the skis do big GS turns and run.
post #9 of 34
You know, it was a funny thing with the S12. I also demoed the Mag 12, also in a 176, and really liked it a lot, but I ended up buying the S12 just because I thought it would be more appropriate for New England conditions. The first day I skied the S12 was at Killington with about 5 inches of fresh overnight. Skied everything from fresh snow in the morning to crud bumps and skied off boilerplate in the afternoon, and came away loving those skis. Skied long and hard all day, and went home with my legs feeling as fresh as when the day began. Next time I skied was at Sunday River in very similar conditions, and just didn't feel right all day. Skis just weren't working for me no matter what I did. Had a chance to demo the Mag 10 the same day, and didn't like them either. Just felt big and clunky. Which was surprising, because as I mentioned, I had demoed the Mag 12 before and really liked it, and the 12 is supposed to be a more demanding ski than the 10. The next day, I skied at Attitash for half a day, and then went off to do some Xcountry in the afternoon. After that, I just went back to skiing my older pair of XRC 1100's, and haven't skied the Elans since.
As I remember though, I felt like I was coming down with something the whole weekend, just kind of felt tired and weak. I don't know if that would account for the two totally different experiences that I had on the same ski, but maybe it's time to haul them out and give them another try.
post #10 of 34
Now, in contrast to my experience with the S12, my two demos of the XRC 1200's bore much more consistent results. To be honest, I was initially turned off to that ski because of the reviews I had read, PK's review aside, that described the 1200 as a slightly detuned version of a race ski groomer cruiser with limited versatility, which is not what I was looking for. However, I just didn't find that to be the case. The first time I tried it, along with two other skies, I felt immediately comfortable on it just skating to the lift. The ski had wonderful stability at speed, just instilled the confidence to want to go faster and faster. But it also went through crud and broken snow along the edge of the trail like it wasn't there. But what really surprised me was how well the ski handled some pretty frozen bumps, something I wasn't expecting at all. Didn't feel as stiff as my XRC 1100 chips, didn't tend to through me as much when I made a mistake. On the groomers, I skied them back to back with the XRC 1100 chips. The 1200 had a lighter feel, more lively, but just as stable. The 1100 chip felt somewhat sluggish in comparison. The 1200 felt like it was more nimble, and more agreeable in shorter turns than the 1100 chip. However, I really appreciate the dampness of the 1100 chip in wet heavy spring snow. Handles that better than most midfats I've tried. I don't know how the 1200 would compare in those conditions, or in powder for that matter.
I'm probably going back to try the 1200 for a third time. My experience with these skis seems to be contrary to most of the reviews I've read about them, so I figure there must be something I'm missing here. I guess it's just a case of not trusting my own judgement.
post #11 of 34
Thread Starter 

I'm with Mac on the 1200's

I tend agree with Mac take on the 1200's. When I demo'd the '07 in a 170 I was amazed at the versatility, great at long radius, and speed and quite reasonable at shorter radius as well. I considered these to be the best all around ski I have tried. It had that stability I like and could even handle boot top powder and crud. I think my size has alot to do with it.
I am concerned that if I go to the RX8 I just won't get that same energetic yet stable ride. I am afraid that the ski just won't stand up under my size even in a 180. I definately don't like a ski that has a squirrely feel at speed or a soft feel under my heavyweight.

I skied the '07 -1400 a couple of times and I just can't get excited about the damp feeling this ski gave me. It seems so much like the 1200 but that added dampness does nothing for me.

I think the 177 in the '07 - 1200 would be my ideal ski but I can't find them ( Dawg can't get them) , so has anyone skied the '06 -1200 in a 170 or 177 . These are still around on closeout and are the same as the current SS speed. I am not too worried if they give up something in the powder/crud department but want something that has the shorter radius capability as close to the '07 as I can find.

I am also very interested how the current Fischer WC-RC in 175 compares to the '07 1200. Based on the reviews it sounds very similar to the '06 1200 (great at speed and long radius) but can they do shorter radius like that '07 -1200 ??
post #12 of 34
The Mountainside Ski Shop at Wachusett Mtn. has the 07 XRC 1200 in a 177, or they did the last time I was there. 978 464 2300. I'm surprised to hear that Dawg doesn't have them, as I was under the impression that he did.
post #13 of 34
And it's not that I didn't like the RX8. I think that would be a wonderful ski for a lot of people. I just don't feel that it would be a great choice for an aggressive heavyweight skier.
post #14 of 34
Thread Starter 

Who sells Head in Sunday River

Does anyone know what shop sells Head in Sunday River. I am in Atlantic Canada (PEI) and will be in Sunday River in about three weeks so if I can line a pair of '07 Head 1200's up there it would be ideal.

Thanks
post #15 of 34
No one that I know of carries Head in the area. The ski shop in the South Ridge base lodge used to, but no more.
post #16 of 34
Thread Starter 

Fischer - HEad

Can anyone compare how the 06 iXRC 1200 , RX9 or WC RC would measure up to the 07 Head iXRC 1200. Which would be the closest match ?
I think the RX8 is out . I like a stiff feeling skis but something that can turn medium radius with effort. Remember 235lbs needs a stiff ski not to feel like a noodle.

If none of the 3 skis listed are close then I think I will try and get the 07 iXRC 1200's although I suspect the price will be quite a bit more than the bargain skis listed.

Thanks all for the great help.
post #17 of 34
I weigh 230-240(level 8, skied for 42 years and am a member of the NSP), and ski the RX8 in 175. It definitely does not feel like a noodle. I have not skied many other shaped skis, but could not be happier with the RX8. Short, medium and long turns are all nice. I can skid or carve them and they are fine in the bumps.

IMO, they are worth a try.
post #18 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by fischermh View Post
I weigh 230-240(level 8, skied for 42 years and am a member of the NSP), and ski the RX8 in 175. It definitely does not feel like a noodle. I have not skied many other shaped skis, but could not be happier with the RX8. Short, medium and long turns are all nice. I can skid or carve them and they are fine in the bumps.

IMO, they are worth a try.
Ditto, I'm a member of the 230 Lbs club and have used a RX8 in a 175cm; it's not a noodle!

Michael
post #19 of 34

Heads

Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverRat View Post
Does anyone know what shop sells Head in Sunday River. I am in Atlantic Canada (PEI) and will be in Sunday River in about three weeks so if I can line a pair of '07 Head 1200's up there it would be ideal.
Rat,
1)SkiDepot (Jay, ME): ~18-25mi north(actually E-NE) of SR on rte #2, take either #17 or #4 to Jay & shop...(on lefthand side of rd). They're the closest, although N. Conway, NH shops are only ~30mi away...as well. Doesn't look like the Depot's price has dropped on the 1200s ...as winter is still alive in Maine.
post #20 of 34
Thread Starter 

Thanks for the tip on Ski depot, calling Barretscv

Haveskiswillclimb,

I never realized they were in Maine. I may stop there on my way to Sunday river if I don't get something in the meantime. Maybe by then the prices will drop.

I can get last years XRC 1200's in a 177 for half the price just wish I knew how close they were to this years model.

It sounds like I might have been wrong on the reports I was reading of the RX8 being soft but I guess it is so subject to personal opinion. Unfortuneately I will not likely get a chance to ski a pair unless I order some online but the prices are good on the RX8,RX9.
post #21 of 34
It's all relative. Compared to a Salomon Equipe or Rosi 9S Oversize the RX8 is pretty stiff; compared to a Kästle Super-G it's a noodle. IMHO if your 200+ lbs, you might as well get the WC SC (which is a bit beefier than the RX8).
post #22 of 34
I’m 6’ 205 and own the RX8’s in a 170 and a 175(first time on the 175 this weekend). Neither are soft or squirrelly IMO. I actually prefer the 170 just a bit more. The reasons for preferring the 170 a bit more? For my style of skiing, I felt the 170 had more pop coming out of a turn. They also felt more energetic. The first day that I skied the 175, it felt damp and sluggish COMPARED to the 170. I actually tested this buy skiing a NASTAR course 6 times. I skied the first three runs on the 175 and the next three on the 170. My times on the 170’s were over 3/4 of a second faster. I was actually disappointed with the results as that was one of the main reasons for purchasing the 175’s (longer skis, faster times). This was my fist time on them however and maybe I just need to dial in on the sweet spot. Still love them both though. For anyone stating that they are squirrelly sounds like they could be skiing them flat. These puppies need to be on edge at all times.
post #23 of 34
Just got back from another round of demoing yesterday. I also went back and read your original post again so I could a better feel for the type of ski you are looking for. As far as your question of how much difference there is between last years XRC 1200 and this years model, my answer would have to be not much. Last years model had a little less sidecut, as I can remember the 2006 might have been a teenie bit stiffer, was probably not as good in bumps as the 2007, although the 2007 would hardly be considered a true bump ski anyway. For groomed conditions, last years model was hard to beat. I think you are really splitting hairs between the two. Dawgcatching could probably give you a better answer than I could, as I never had the chance to ski them back to back, although I did ski the 2007 model again yesterday. It does sound to me like thats the family you should be looking at. The Fischer RX9 would be a ski that would fall into the same category. If you felt the Ripstick was kind of soft, then skis like the RX8 and even the Supershape are going to feel the same way. These skis all fall into a more slalom like sidecut category, and don't really fit the profile of what you described that you are looking for in your original post.
post #24 of 34
Thread Starter 

Thanks Mac and everyone

Thanks for all of the great feedback and help from the great wealth of knowledge in this forum.

I have been thinking it over the last few days with input from others on this forum. I keep going back to the XRC 1200. In retrospect, the only complaints I had with that ski would be

1. - that it doesn't like to ski slow and
2. - a little tighter radius would be nice to have but its hard to think of giving up the high speed stability.

Barrett and others gave strong recommendations on the RX-8 so it keeps keep making me wonder if I would be giving up much to go that route. There are good recommendations on the Speedwave 14 and Fisher WC SC as well with Dawg being a supporter of the sweedwave 14. I will PM him ( tried his shop today) to see what his thoughts are on that ski for a 235lber. I think he indicated somewhere that it was stable at speed for a SL and a great carver , a stepped up RX8 feel.

I am basically at the 06 XRC1200 or 07 Fischer WC RC unless I get convinced the Fischer WC SC or Speedwave 14 might give me 80 - 90% of the high speed stability with an easier medium radius and slower speed feel.
I want to order my skis by the end of this week so I will have them for our March trip so it's time to Sh*% or get off the pot.

RR
post #25 of 34
Agree with Mac on the RX9. Another great ski that I used for a day and loved. More of a GS shaped compared to the RX8. I'm loking for a pair of last year's model in a 175. I used my friends earlier in the year but they were 170's. I think that the RX9 would perform better in a 175 or 180.
post #26 of 34
I'm pretty sure I saw a pair of the RX9's in a 175 when I was at Wachusett the other night. They also had a few pairs set up to demo. Give them a call. The prices have started to drop, too.
post #27 of 34
RiverRat, I wouldn't say that the XRC 1200 doesn't like to go slow, it would just prefer to go fast, if that makes any sense! I also agree with you on the turn radius. It does not turn real quickly. In fact, that ski gives you a feeling that everything is happening in slow motion. You roll it on edge, and it just comes around in a big easy arc. The trees are whizzing by, but you feel like you are hardly moving, the ski is so calm. By contrast, the Supershape is like an aerobic workout, load the outside ski and it just hurls you from one turn to the next. I came away with a huge smile on my face, I was almost giggling. However, the Supershape is not really for cruising. For every three turns I made on the 1200, I would make ten on the Supershape, it just wants to keep turning all the time. A totally different animal.
Anyway, they still have the 2007 XRC 1200 in a 177 and 170 at Wachusett. And as I previously mentioned, the price has started to drop.
post #28 of 34
Reminds me of my Head Monster im75 chips. I never felt like I was going fast on them but I was cranking. They are too damp for my liking.....
post #29 of 34
Thread Starter 

The Quest finally Ends - Thanks all

I ordered a pair of 2006-7 Dynastar Contact 11's in a 178cm from ActionSportsOutlet for US$599. In the end after a great deal of deliberation and input from Mac, Barretscv, and others I went with this ski.
I think I would be happy on any of the skis I was looking at but the Contact 11 reportedly had the GS stability I wanted like the Head and some crud and shorter radius performance I also desired.

First time I ever bought a ski based on internet reports but I'll keep my fingers crossed.
I probably would of bought the Head if I could have found it in Canada but I could not and the added cost of importing into Canada didn't appeal to me.

I will post a report when I get a chance to try them out.

RR
post #30 of 34
Congrats!

Michael
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Opinions Needed - Fischer RX8,9,WC Head SS Speed